Fixing the System: Not a Playoff Model.
by jonfmorse on Dec 5, 2011 12:12 PM CST
in Commentary
Email
PrintThe following post is expanded and adapted from a comment I left in response to this morning's post by Bill Connolly at the mothership.
The system, it is broken. Almost every year, we have this problem one way or another whether it's the championship game participants or who gets to go to the big money bowls; someone, somewhere, is angry because their team is left on the outside looking in. I suppose that would be easy enough to ignore if that's all it was. We could just make dismissive comments about people being butthurt and get on with our day. Except it's not just the people associated with the teams that get bent out of shape. We all get into the argument. We take sides, we argue, we get angry. When you have, just as an example, a Minnesota fan arguing with a Miami (FL) fan about whether Alabama or Oklahoma State more deserved the shot at LSU, it's obvious we all care about this. (And of course, from the K-State perspective, pretty much everyone who doesn't wear maroon and orange is up in arms about how we've been shafted yet again -- even our rivals and the other teams that have as much to complain about as we do.)
The first reaction we all seem to have to this is to say the system needs to be fixed, and what we always focus on is that we need more teams so that the teams left out won't have anything about which to complain. Now, personally, I am in favor of a playoff -- indeed, I'm in favor of a Great Big Party playoff, the 16-team version in which all 11 conference champions earn a ticket. That, however, is not because I think it'll fix the system. It's because in my super-hero identity, I champion the smaller colleges, and as a result I have been watching teams participate in playoffs for... well, for a long time. As a result, I can tell you without the slightest hesitation that every single argument against a playoff in the major college structure is bogus.
It won't fix the system, however, because the reason we all get mad is directly related to something completely different. The system isn't broken because deserving teams are left out. It's broken because the nature of the selection process is, if not unfair on its face, entirely too prone to accusations that it's unfair. But that's okay; I know how to fix it.
It doesn't matter how many teams you want playing for the title. What matters is how you select them. One major appeal of the 16-team all-champions-in model is that there will be almost no argument about the presence of 87.5% of the field. In a given year, three of the at-larges are almost certain to be obvious, and eleven of the teams will be there with no dispute whatsover (or, at worst, any dispute will be directed at the conference in question for having stupid tiebreakers). But a couple of those at-large teams are going to generate controversy, almost guaranteed. Sure, the vast majority of us at that point will be saying, "So what, we've got the top seven teams in here anyway, and if you wanted to legitimately play for a championship maybe you shouldn't have been ranked eighth."
The solution is at the core of the system. No matter how many teams you're selecting, the selection of those teams must be made either by computers, or by a panel of people whose JOB it is to do so, or a combination of the two. I do not mean writers. I do not mean coaches. I do not mean athletic directors and school presidents. I mean people who are actually dedicated to watch these teams play and openly, transparently, make a decision — a decision they’re going to have to defend to the public.
Seriously, hasn’t anyone stopped to consider that we leave 2/3 of the decision-making NOW in the hands of guys who are asked to fill out a ballot even though at best they’ve managed to catch the freakin’ highlight package of the day’s games? And every single one of these guys has a more important job to do. Voting in the poll is just a lark (and some of them don’t even do it themselves). Worse, almost every one of them has a bias, whether obvious (Hi, Nick Saban, thanks for voting Oklahoma State #4) or subtle (a Harris voter connected to the state of Oklahoma might prefer OSU to Alabama without really considering the matter). They're not accountable. Yeah, the coaches, and some Harris voters, release their ballots. What are you going to do to a voter who decides to get activist and votes Alabama #23? Nothing except mock him, really. Maybe enough of a stink gets raised that he doesn't get to vote anymore, and frankly you may have just done him a favor.
Corruption, though it certainly exists, is not the main issue. I digressed there to cover it, but I need to get back to why having these guys vote the way they do doesn't work. To put in the simplest terms possible, the polls are inherently biased toward the narrative.
I am not (necessarily*) accusing the networks carrying games of deliberately structuring their coverage in order to push a narrative for the purpose of influencing poll voters. However, we have to accept and recognize (and more to the point, the networks have to man up, accept, and recognize) that under the current system, how they cover the sport in and of itself has far too much influence on the voters themselves. If ESPN analysts had been stumping for Oklahoma State, Alabama would be in the Sugar Bowl. If Verne Lundquist and Gary Danielson don’t spend an entire half waxing rhapsodic about how glorious a rematch would be and how great the SEC is, maybe Alabama is in the Sugar Bowl. That’s a reality we’re going to have to acknowledge. I’m not mortally offended that Alabama is in the championship; I am mortally offended that the decision was made by people at whom propaganda was being openly fed. Speaking personally, I think Oklahoma State should have been #2; yet the fact that Bob Stoops voted them #2 would have really pissed me off if Alabama had actually had a game yesterday.
Why? Because Bob Stoops was too damned busy doing his job to pay a lick of attention to what Alabama would have done, had they played. The fans of college football get to sit at home and channel surf all day Saturday. When it really comes down to it, as a collective we know more about this stuff than they do. It's a horrible thought, one which the media doesn't want to accept because as they're always quick to point out when they dismiss you, they're professionals. Yeah. The thing is, what we're asking them to do isn't what they're professionals at.
The problem isn't how many teams we have involved. It's deciding which ones. Let's fix that.
82 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Playoff is still #1 goal.
But yes, this is a necessary step if we’re keeping this shit.
USC knockoff uniforms, none of the results (including probation)
Wide Right & Natty Lite | @widertnattylt
Neat thoughts.
Not anything I would largely disagree with. I’ve had this thought as well about some sort of panel/committee. I think it would have to entail the following:
1 fan of each 120 D1 schools. Each “fan” would have to watch every top25 game of the week. Whether that means it’s between Saturday and Sunday, or if the polls can’t come out until tuesday when they finish tabulating their results after roughly (average of 18 games a week assuming some of the top 25 plays each other @ 3.5hrs per game) 63hrs of games…They would all have to go to the same place (or perhaps there are 4 regional sites that you could go to), where all of the voters are watching the same games at the same time. Even this idea has its flaws. But it’s just something I’ve thought of lately…
But it remains true, my saying of the BCS’ problem isn’t who’s #1, it’s determining who’s #2. Usually there’s one clear cut team that deserves to be there. Luckily this year at least doesn’t have the option of 2 teams finishing the year undefeated. That’s my other beef with it.
I like you Jon, am not 100% offended Alabama’s in, they’re a legitimate #2 candidate, but listen at what I just said, “candidate”.
One more overall problem is the double sided nature of the overall “system”. If the BCS is designed to only decide the championship game, stop calling the other bowls a BCS bowl. Now I’m not entirely pissed that KSU isn’t in a BCS bowl, eh I can get over that. But the inconsistency of saying on one hand you select the NCG based off of merit and not “what would draw ratings (see OSU-LSU matchup)?”-which it should be-and then for the rest of their bowls they say “what would draw ratings” and not select teams based on merit. WTF is it? I can even get behind Ubben’s assertion that he could even stomach Boise State taking one of the Sugar Bowl’s spots over KSU better than VT.
Rant complete.
"Nor yet in Dell?"
by GTcat on Dec 5, 2011 12:31 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
A selection committee, like the one for basketball, would be as close to perfect as possible.
Don’t let the BCS bowls that have a financial stake in who participates choose who gets the big payday. I prefer a playoff, but presuming you keep the bowl structure, a selection committee still works. The selection committee ranks the top 10 eligible teams. The top two play in the National Championship Game. No. 3 plays No. 4. No. 5 plays No. 6. Etc. If you want to keep a semblance of conference tie ins, the teams play at the bowl traditionally affiliated with the higher-ranked team.
You could let the non-BCS bowls continue in the same way they currently do. They’re consolation prizes, like the NIT or CBI. And who gets really peeved about the NIT or CBI’s selection process? Anyone?
by AMS on Dec 5, 2011 12:49 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
This is why they pay me the big coupons.
Although I don’t know what I’m going to do with 12 6-packs of disposable Lady Schicks.
The Wiki (I Don't Have a Real Name Yet) -- The Blog (Those Other Guys) -- The Twitter
Contributor at Bring on the Cats, SBNation's Kansas State blog
EDSBS Censor Librorum Promulgatio Media
Question for Jon
Do you masturbate to college football stats? Not that there’s anything inherently wrong with that…
USC knockoff uniforms, none of the results (including probation)
Wide Right & Natty Lite | @widertnattylt
No, that's disgusting. Sicko.
I only have sex with women if they’ll whisper the names and mascots of every D-III school, though.
The Wiki (I Don't Have a Real Name Yet) -- The Blog (Those Other Guys) -- The Twitter
Contributor at Bring on the Cats, SBNation's Kansas State blog
EDSBS Censor Librorum Promulgatio Media
by jonfmorse on Dec 5, 2011 1:25 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
The Goeducks (sp?) are one, correct?
I don’t even know what school they belong to though.
First to identify a TEWWT (so what if it was unintentional)
Too bad Wichita State doesn't have a football team anymore?
USC knockoff uniforms, none of the results (including probation)
Wide Right & Natty Lite | @widertnattylt
Unfortunately
pigs flying is when I except logical change to happen.
But I definitely like your ideas.
The time for calm and rational discourse is past, now is the time for senseless bickering -Anonymous the Younger
BOTC - Read the Adventures of the BigXII if you doubt our serious attitude towards sports.
by Anon_the_younger on Dec 5, 2011 1:01 PM CST reply actions 2 recs
I agree
Coaches have no business voting in a poll that decides the fates of their peers because
1. They are biased towards their school/conference
2. They have agenda’s against schools/coaches they don’t like (I call it the “Butthurt Level”)
3. They cannot objectively rank schools because they cannot watch all the games
Even I have a hard time ranking teams on ESPN’s Fan rankings because I’ve only been able to watch a handful (at best) of top 25 games, and at best have seen most of the scores/stat sheets to make a reasonable decision; God knows the coaches (or their appointed subsidiary) who get real votes have seen even less than that.
A selection committee, aided by a computer average, should pair teams for post season play, just like the other NCAA tourneys. The end result could be a Top-16 playoff (my favorite option), but could fix the current system into something a little less egregious and little easier to stomach. The end result of that process this year could have meant bowl pairings in this order for the NCG and top 4 bowl games:
1. LSU v. OSU (obviously)
2. Bama v. KSU (yes, the Cats are #4 in the computers)
3. Stanford v. Arkansas (no more limits on teams from a conference)
4. Oklahoma v. Oregon (eww, but the computers have them here)
5. Boise v. S. Carolina
Wait, no Big 10, ACC, or Big East? A Non-AQ? 3 Big-12 and 4 SEC???
IT’s crazy, but shows the SEC and Big 12 are the best two conferences in football this year, and should be deciding who IS the best on the field. Sure, the outcry from the above formula would be deafening, but maybe it would force the Big 10/ACC/Big East teams to play tougher schedules and/or work to even the gap from bottom to top (Esp. Big 10 and ACC).
by jtarkman on Dec 5, 2011 1:26 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
Ideally
if I were the Selection Committee, with Current rules about AQ’s, Conference Limits, etc. I would order the matchups thusly:
1. LSU v. OSU
2. Bama v. Boise (Sugar)
3. Wisconsin v. Oregon (Rose)
4. Stanford v. KSU (Fiesta)
5. Clemson v. WVU (Orange)
And I think most of you would agree with me (hopefully).
The Sugar Bowl would be a great ratings draw, see if David could slay Goliath again; Rose and Orange are tie-in partners, and Rose will be a good game to watch; Fiesta matches two teams with big draws in a possible Heisman winner, and a should-be Heisman winner (if you don’t understand who is who, you’re on the wrong blog)…
by jtarkman on Dec 5, 2011 1:33 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
AND my playoff model, for giggles
Top 16 teams, seeded according to current BCS rankings and rules, with added rules from BBall tourney about no first round conference games and such:
1v16= LSU v. WVU
2v15= Bama v. Clemson
3v14= OSU v. Michigan
4v13= Stanford v. Oklahoma (see, had to switch these based on conference)
5v12= Oregon v. Baylor
6v11= Arkansas v. Va. Tech
7v10= Boise v. Wisconsin
8v9= KSU v. South Carolina
Use a usual playoff model, and I bet BracketCat could crunch the numbers and tell you who wins this thing…its kinda his thing anyway ;-)
by jtarkman on Dec 5, 2011 2:46 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Bill Snyder actually says as much
during every post game conference (that they don’t know what’s going on elsewhere). I think they probably see a scoresheet at the end of the day, but unless it is next week’s opponent, he doesn’t care about what the other 118 FBS schools are doing at that moment.
First to identify a TEWWT (so what if it was unintentional)
One idea I have...
Make every bowl tie-in optional. Then, if the Sugar still didn’t want Boise and K-State, the Cotton could have given us the matchup that the Sugar is missing out on.
Clippers // Chargers // Rays // Boise State
"The Lakers do win games. But things can change." - Blake Griffin
I don't understand your comment...
Surgeon General's Warning: K-State-Mizzou basketball may increase the risk of high blood pressure. Please consult your doctor prior to watching any of these games.
Some guy named George Wine proves Jon's point
This is an actual quote from a Harris Poll voter who put OSU at #6 because he says USM is better than ISU (which is in itself debatable):
“This voting is highly subjective. I realize that voting is subjective and often arbitrary. I probably don’t do as much research … but who the hell knows whether Oregon is better than Wisconsin?”
Appallingly honest. This quote needs to be sent out in boldfaced capital letters to everyone involved with the sham that is the BCS.
by Ahearn Alley on Dec 5, 2011 4:36 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
As much as I like the man for being brutally honest,
he’s still a schmuck. That really is the dumbest logic.
Surgeon General's Warning: K-State-Mizzou basketball may increase the risk of high blood pressure. Please consult your doctor prior to watching any of these games.
I feel
you guys got the shaft again by the BCS. Wasn’t it 2001 or there abouts when if you won the big XII title game you were in the national title game? Then after losing only one game for the year they left you out? I was just really disappointed you didn’t get a BCS game. Va Tech losing to Clemson should have ousted them and the Michigan invite is suspect as well. Anyways I love to see what Snyder has done in his second stint at KSU and hope it continues to go well in the future. Would love to play you in a bowl game in the future. Once again SCREW THE BCS.
1998
Then we got relegated to the Alamo Bowl and lost to some qb named Drew Brees. We don’t like to talk about that. Thanks for the sentiment, though. Good luck against South Carolina.
by Ahearn Alley on Dec 5, 2011 4:46 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
How bout '03?
When we beat OU in the Big XII Title game, and they STILL got to go to the BSC title game? (Not to mention got a Heisman winner, which I still contest should’ve gone to Larry Fitzgerald)
by BlueCat on Dec 5, 2011 5:00 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Don't like to talk about El (derp) Robinson either.
If I'd known I was going to live this long, I'd have taken better care of myself.
I believe you are referring to
Ell Roberson of Kansas State quarterback history…?
'Fact. Bears eat beets. Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica.' --Jim Halpert
I don't blame the system.
I blame the voters. I blame the Sugar Bowl Selection committee. Period.
The BCS didn’t actually hurt our chances – the formula actually helped us make a case.
The voters screwed up the title game.
Surgeon General's Warning: K-State-Mizzou basketball may increase the risk of high blood pressure. Please consult your doctor prior to watching any of these games.
by mystman995 on Dec 5, 2011 5:43 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
The only way things will be changed?
Litigation.
I’ll explain after I get the boys down.
When life hands you lemons, make grape juice. Let them wonder how the F*ck you did it.
Fight till Hell freezes over and then fight them on the ice.
agreed.
The time for calm and rational discourse is past, now is the time for senseless bickering -Anonymous the Younger
BOTC - Read the Adventures of the BigXII if you doubt our serious attitude towards sports.
by Anon_the_younger on Dec 5, 2011 8:40 PM CST up reply actions
Wow.
•Kansas State was as high as No. 6 (Art Briles) and as low as 17 (Les Miles).
I just need to stop reading this crap. Absolutely pisses me off. While i’m not sure we’re the 8th ranked, sure the hell not close to 17th!
"Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." Mark Twain
by ictcat on Dec 5, 2011 9:33 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
Les Miles is dumb as a rock.
And not one of those super smart rocks, that tell us a lot about the historical fossil record. One of those really stupid rocks that’s laying randomly in the road, acting all stupid and rock-like, when a truck hits it and throws it into the corner of your windshield, causing an even stupider crack. That kind of rock.
by Collin's Bloody Elbow on Dec 6, 2011 8:40 AM CST up reply actions
To the contrary, I think Les Miles is part of the fossil record.
No one’s determined what he is a fossil of yet.
If I'd known I was going to live this long, I'd have taken better care of myself.
by ArkieCat on Dec 6, 2011 10:47 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
An 8 team playoff is my vote...
With some prerequisites and a focus on keeping it simple.
1: Eliminate the coaches poll and replace it with another poll similar to the AP poll (but with different sports experts).
2. The BCS system decides the 8 teams selected to make the final 8 regardless of conference affiliation.
3. The top 4 ranked conference champions receive automatic bids
4. Round 1 will be played at the traditional BCS Bowl venues (Rose, Sugar, Orange, Fiesta)
5. Round 2 and Championship game will be played at one of 4 BCS bowls (that rotate the honor each year.
6. Any undefeated team who finishes in the top 12 makes the playoff and will have a play-in game with the # 8 team to decide who makes the final 8.
7. Rematches from regular season will be avoided by shifting teams one slot.
This is how it would look in 2011 (* for top 4 BCS ranked conference champs)
1) LSU (1) *
2) Oklahoma St. (3)*
3) Oregon (5)*
4) Boise St. (7) *
5) Alabama (2)
6) Stanford (4)
7) Arkansas (7)
8) Kansas St. (8)
Round 1
Kansas St. (8) vs. LSU (1)* Sugar Bowl
Arkansas (7) vs. Oklahoma St. (2)* Orange Bowl
Alabama (5) vs. Oregon (3)* Rose Bowl
Stanford (6) vs. Boise St. (4)* Fiesta Bowl
Round 2 (at Sugar Bowl)
Boise St. (4) vs. LSU (1)
Oregon (3) vs. Oklahoma St. (2)
BCS National Championship (at Sugar Bowl)
Oklahoma St. (2) vs. LSU (1)
Oklahoma St. wins the BCS National Championship in my mock playoff.
I'll have what you're smoking.
by ksuwild on Dec 5, 2011 10:01 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
Honestly
Who thinks that the voting would change subtlely if K-Sate was 8th in that scenario? We’d probably get a fewer lower votes here and there just to keep us out of it. And then we’d be angry anyway.
Bobby Hill: What's a meat examination team?
Hank Hill: It's like a debate team, only instead of doing something useless you get to grade the cut and quality of meat!
Boise was not the champion of their conference.
by Collin's Bloody Elbow on Dec 6, 2011 8:42 AM CST up reply actions
You are correct sir...
So this is how it would look under that format
1) LSU (1) *
2) Oklahoma St. (3)*
3) Oregon (5)*
4) Wisconsin (12)*
5) Alabama (2)
6) Stanford (4)
7) Arkansas (6)
8) Boise St. (7)
Maybe it would be easier to just use the BCS top 8 regardless of whether you win your conference or not. I would like to see teams rewarded for winning their conference but in this case it Wisconsin getting in for winning the B10 bumps Kansas St out of the playoff. :-(
I'll have what you're smoking.
This is why you have a selection committee,
that uses common sense to recognize that Boise has only played two tough teams all year, and lost to one of them, while KSU has played 7 and defeated 5.
by Collin's Bloody Elbow on Dec 6, 2011 9:23 AM CST up reply actions
The thing I don't like about using a selection committee...
Is that it leaves room for bias, which is part of the problem with the coaches poll and the boll selection committee.
Who is to say the don’t bump a team up (like Michigan) because they know they will draw a larger TV audience than a Kansas St. or Arkansas for example.
The problem with the BCS right now is not the ranking system itself, it’s the fact that only two teams can play for the National Championship at the end of the season.
If they would drop the ultra biased coaches poll and replace it with a legitimate poll then the BCS rankings would be much more accurate. So why not use a system like the final BCS rankings that is unbiased (minus the coaches poll)?
I'll have what you're smoking.
The current BCS ranking system is broken.
They use 6 computer polls, 5 of which have formulas that are completely secret. They use two human polls for 2/3 of the ranking, both of which are rife with people who (A) don’t care, and/or (B) are blatantly biased. What they need is a completely open computer poll, done by a respected source, combined with a committee of, say, 5 knowledgeable men who make decisions based upon the numbers put out by the computer poll. The decision-making process would be transparent, and the men who made the decisions would be forced to face the media and explain their rationale.
by Collin's Bloody Elbow on Dec 6, 2011 11:35 AM CST up reply actions
I would agree that the BCS system is broken...
But NOT the BCS ranking system. It actually works well minus the coaches poll which we all agree is completely biased.
Again, the problem with the BCS is the fact that only 2 teams can play for a championship. That, and that bowl selection committies have the opportunity and ability to choose teams based on TV ratings and not their body of work throughout the season (ie picking Michigan and Virginia Tech over Kansas St for the Sugar Bowl).
I think a committee could work for a playoff if the right restrictions were in place but I still think it leaves a lot of room for bias based on tradition and TV ratings.
Replace the coaches poll and the BCS ranking system will be spot on. Then you can use it as an unbiased format to select the teams that will make a playoff.
I'll have what you're smoking.
by ksuwild on Dec 6, 2011 12:52 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
So, then you DO believe that the BCS ranking system is broken.
ut NOT the BCS ranking system. It actually works well minus the coaches poll which we all agree is completely biased.
If you have to change 1/3 of the ranking system to make it work, then that means it is broken.
Would you like some Freys with that?
by ChrisP Wildcat on Dec 6, 2011 1:19 PM CST up reply actions
As it sits today, yes
But if you were to replace the coaches poll with a poll similar to the AP poll… you could leave every other part of the formula EXACTLY the way it is and it would work beautifully for ranking teams.
In other words, it’s the coaches poll that’s broken (and that the BCS formula includes it at all) NOT the rest of the formula.
I'll have what you're smoking.
Well, I have a problem with "secret" computer formulas.
But, basically, you are arguing for the same changes (remove voter bias, don’t let the bowls pick based on their own criteria) that jonfmorse does in this article, but for some reason you don’t see that as the system being broken.
The only appreciable difference in your stances are the presence of “selection committees”. You think they would be just as biased.
And you come to the conclusion that the problem is the number of teams involved, not the selection process. If you agree that the selection process is biased, how will simply changing the number of teams involved fix anything? There will still be rampant bias influencing the selections.
Would you like some Freys with that?
by ChrisP Wildcat on Dec 6, 2011 1:36 PM CST up reply actions
I think you are over simplifying my stance a little here...
If you remove or replace the coaches poll in the BCS formula that fixes the “problem” in my opinion.
After that, you let the numbers do the picking… NOT people. That takes the bias out of the selection process.
Once the year ends and all of the conference championships have been played you end up with the top 8 BCS ranked teams.
Those are the teams that make the playoff regardless of the conference they play for or how much TV ratings they bring in.
What’s biased or unfair about that?
I'll have what you're smoking.
as I said yesterday
The rules now are so inclusive, they wind up being exclusive. (that is an oversimplification of the problems, but still kinda hits the nail on the head)
First to identify a TEWWT (so what if it was unintentional)
Also...
http://espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?page=bcsexplanationnew
http://espn.go.com/college-football/bcs
These two links show exactly how the computers do their math. I will agree that it’s very confusing but it is not a secret by any means.
As far as formulas go the old addage holds true… garbage in, garbage out.
Until they replace or remove the “USA Today Coaches Poll” the BCS ranking system will be flawed.
The other problems with the BCS have nothing to do with the ranking system itself.
I'll have what you're smoking.
The "secret" part
is in how the computer rankings used in the BCS are calculated, as opposed to what you seem to be defending which is the BCS formula’s use of the computer rankings (rankings meaning sets of rankings, not the plural indicating multiple teams in one ranking group).
Clear as mud yet? :-)
'Fact. Bears eat beets. Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica.' --Jim Halpert
by VegasCat07 on Dec 6, 2011 3:16 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
The six computer ranking providers are...
Anderson & Hester
http://www.andersonsports.com/football/ACF_frnk.html
Richard Billingsley
http://www.cfrc.com/html/rankings.html
Colley Matrix
http://www.colleyrankings.com/currank.html
Kenneth Massey
http://masseyratings.com/rate.php?lg=cf
Jeff Sagarin
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt11.htm
and Peter Wolfe
http://prwolfe.bol.ucla.edu/cfootball/ratings.htm
This is where the numbers come from. No secret…
I'll have what you're smoking.
the methodology for four of them is. that's the rub.
When life hands you lemons, make grape juice. Let them wonder how the F*ck you did it.
Fight till Hell freezes over and then fight them on the ice.
Jeremy's Method is no secret
and I would argue that anyone can understand how it is calculated, and how it works.
First to identify a TEWWT (so what if it was unintentional)
The Harris Poll is just as broken as the Coaches' Poll, at least in my view.
I think it’s six of one, half dozen of the other. And the lack of transparency in the computer formulas is concerning as well.
by Collin's Bloody Elbow on Dec 7, 2011 9:00 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Jeremy's method actually helps eliminate that bias
YES, humans are still involved in the polls (which may have a part to do with Sagarin rankings, I’m not positive), but say for instance Houston had played teams that are ranked higher in the Sagarin rankings, then it doesn’t matter if they themselves are ranked #45. They get the credit they deserve for beating the teams they did (whether people actually want to give them that credit or not by the way of voting them into the polls).
My Houston scenario is purely hypothetical…because Jeremy’s Method shows they are not that great (Boise is better, and KSU is even better still).
First to identify a TEWWT (so what if it was unintentional)
Question:
How do the computers know that Boise plays in a weak conference?
Serious question.
With computers, we could have an undefeated, Frank Solich coached Ohio team in the Big Enchilada. Playing an undeafeted Houston.
My point is, this honey pot – this cartel – that is the BCS, is not going to pony up the big $$$$ unless it can guarantee to the advertisers that the end product will be worth paying all that dough.
So this is an interesting discussion, but I still want to know how the computers know that Boise plays in a joke of a conference.
oh hail the Purple and White
Because the teams in Boise's conference
get shithammered in non-conference games.
The Wiki (I Don't Have a Real Name Yet) -- The Blog (Those Other Guys) -- The Twitter
Contributor at Bring on the Cats, SBNation's Kansas State blog
EDSBS Censor Librorum Promulgatio Media
by jonfmorse on Dec 6, 2011 9:43 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
According to the explanation of the BCS formula on ESPN...
http://espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?page=bcsexplanationnew
The computer polls factor in strength of schedule. Also, the human factor accounts for strength of schedule as well. (ie the people who vote in the AP poll for instance, realize that Conference USA and the Mountain West are not as hard to play in as the Big 12 and SEC)
Strength of schedule is definintely factored in. Houston was undefeated until last week, and the highest they made it was 6th in the BCS.
I'll have what you're smoking.
You damn lawyers are always trying to sue somebody!
Well I didn’t pass the bar but I know a little bit, enough to know you want to illegally search my shit.
Ok, so who can sue who? Well, you have to show loss or injury. There is loss suffered by OkSU in the difference in payouts. The same is true for KSU and Boisie. Or is it? The schools don’t actually get the money, the conferences do so maybe the B12 has a claim? Except, the rules that were agreed to were followed weren’t they? Well, yes.
So who can have a claim strong enough to go trial? And who exactly is getting sued?
Well litigation 101 teaches you two things: Follow the money, and when in doubt sue everyone (identify them as defendants). So for my purposes I would file suit on behalf of all 120 FBS schools, against the BCS, all of the bowls and ESPN.
But how? They followed the rules? Right? And ESPN?
Well, as I said the rules were followed, but I would argue that they were done so punitively and not in good faith. That’s where ESPN comes into play.
The rules were followed, but the BCS and the bowls associated with them are not for profit corporations. Supposedly. However, we just saw not one but two bowl selections that was undoubtedly and publicly agreed upon made for financial gain on the part of BCS and ESPN.
ESPN is a for profit corporation with what some might say is a fast approaching antitrust interest in college football. Take a look at what they controll:
ESPN on ABC: ACC, Big 12, Big East, Big Ten, BYU, and Pac-12.
ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPN Plus, ESPN Classic and ESPN3: ACC, Big 12, Big East (ESPN Plus games branded Big East Network), Big Ten, BYU, Conference USA Championship Game, MAC, Pac-12, SEC (ESPN Plus games branded SEC Network), Sun Belt, WAC, MEAC (FCS) Turkey Day Classic (FCS/D-II), D-II Championship Game, D-III Championship Game.
The remaining 32 bowl games, including the entirety of the Bowl Championship Series (Rose, Orange, Sugar, and Fiesta Bowls and BCS National Championship Game), air on ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU.
This covers a combination of first, second, third and “stand alone” networks. Think they have a vested interest in who goes to what bowl? Let’s see how much:
B12 – $480mm
PAC – $3bb
ACC – $1.86bb
B1G – $1bb
SEC – $2.25bb
BEast – $200mm
Name the conferences with only one team in the BCS. Exactly. What does ESPN have against the B12 and BEast? Well someone is going to get their first tier rights and that means it will either cost ESPN a few more Billion or they will have direct competition. Either way it would be beneficial if one or both conferences went away.
ESPN has checks to write, I get it, but when their coverage is presented in such a way that it influences the outcomes of polls and bowl decisions that’s a problem.
So here’s my proposal. I would like to sue the BCS and ESPN on behalf of the B12. I think I can get enough dots connected to get it to trial with a well written claim. I would then sopena every voter in the Harris poll, every coach and SID in the USA Today poll, and all of the owners of the computers used to make up the computer third of the formula. I would force them to defend and/or explain their ballots and methodology to determine their votes. I would put the bowl selection committees on the stand to do the same thing (though they may plead the fifth lest the IRS might want to have a chat). I would put ESPN video editors on the stand and ask questions like, “who instructed you to show all of RG3s highlights and none from the other team in a loss?” I might even put Mark May up there just to ask him under oath why he is such an asshat.
My goal is not to win. If I think I might I would immediately ask for a class certification of all 120 FBS schools and might throw in the living alumni of each institution. Everyone gets a dollar! But seriously the goal here isn’t to win. It is to destroy a broken system. Good luck BCS getting a coach to participate in the coach’s poll. Especially when I hold the trial during recruiting season. Good luck BCS getting anyone to participate in the Harris poll. If you’re lucky, you may be left with the computers, though I would bet at least one or two would be disgraced and not allowed to belong. ESPN, being the one with the most to lose, would immediately seek a different system in place of the BCS, and the bowls, if they survived the IRS, would be a hollow existence of their former selves.
Maybe then they would act as the nonprofits they claim they are now and choose the best teams, not the best money makers.
When life hands you lemons, make grape juice. Let them wonder how the F*ck you did it.
Fight till Hell freezes over and then fight them on the ice.
I would be content in a world where this lawsuit had taken place.
Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever.
by Lynx rufus on Dec 6, 2011 10:05 AM CST via mobile up reply actions
Thinking more about it
You could probably achieve the same thing (subpoenas and testimony) if we started a SB Nation letter writing campaign to congress for the Justice Department and IRS to investigate the non-profit status of the bowls and Sherman Anti Trust Violations between ESPN and the BCS.
Again, you don’t have to win to see the system change.
When life hands you lemons, make grape juice. Let them wonder how the F*ck you did it.
Fight till Hell freezes over and then fight them on the ice.
As it turns out,
you(jonfmorse)/we(BOTC) are not the only ones thinking along these lines…
The take at Nevada’s Silver and Blue
'Fact. Bears eat beets. Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica.' --Jim Halpert
And on WideRight
When life hands you lemons, make grape juice. Let them wonder how the F*ck you did it.
Fight till Hell freezes over and then fight them on the ice.
Excellent post
…and much food for thought.
But here’s my question: why do we even have human polls? The computer rankings are probably the most objective, and can take into account various statistical details of nearly every game played on every single weekend of college football.
Human polls, on the other hand, are inherently subjective and subject to bias, emotion, and even ignorance. Why not just dispense with them altogether?
Obviously that’s anathema to a sport that’s very protective of everything that you can label ’tradition", but it does prevent self-interested behavior on the part of coaches and the media.
Moreover, even if we don’t dispense with human voting altogether, I think the preseason polls should simply go away. Any team that begins the season unranked (or even ranked, but outside the top 10) has to play its way into the top 2, and even then, any small misstep is enough to knock that team out of contention. On the other hand, a team that starts out ranked #1 in the preseason stays at or near the top, even assuming one loss at some point in the season. So the BCS numbers are already heavily skewed towards those teams that have “won” the polls before a single down is even played.
If we have to have human voting, why not wait until October for the first human polls so as to avoid at least some of the bias associated with perception and branding?
by wildcat00 on Dec 6, 2011 12:51 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
the preseason polls (and the polls for the first several weeks) are meaningless
We all see what FSU’s preseason ranking did for them. And if we had been ranked even #20 in the preseason, we might be a couple slots higher than we are now, who knows.
Neither of those situations make either team better or worse than they actually are as we talk today.
First to identify a TEWWT (so what if it was unintentional)
Agreed...
They need to do away with the preseason polls all together because they are pointless. I don’t mind if prognosticators do them for “fun”, but they should not be a factor in any of the polls that factor into the BCS.
I'll have what you're smoking.
That’s sort of my point. If the preseason polls are meaningless, why do we have them at all? I concede that, at the margins (i.e. teams that either underperform or overperform significantly over the season), it makes no difference. But at the top of the BCS numbers, the preseason polls are a huge leg up for some teams. Would a one-loss Alabama team be in the BCS title game if the Tide had started the season ranked #19? I don’t think so.
To me, this is directly related to jonofmorse’s original point: the media controls the narrative. I’m just extrapolating that to the media’s involvement is casting preseason expectations with not much to go on but name recognition and perceptions of talent.
by wildcat00 on Dec 7, 2011 9:34 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
I'm a little disheartened
that this turned into a discussion of playoff models, when the entire point was that it doesn’t matter what model you use. The system is broken because the media controls the narrative, even to the point of influencing the polls.
The Wiki (I Don't Have a Real Name Yet) -- The Blog (Those Other Guys) -- The Twitter
Contributor at Bring on the Cats, SBNation's Kansas State blog
EDSBS Censor Librorum Promulgatio Media
I totally agree that the media controls the narrative
the only reason we think a team is so great (or a conference is so tough, for that matter) is because of the propaganda they spew out.
If you were to look at how OU played the entirety of the season, did they ever really deserve to be #1? FSU sure didn’t deserve to be #5. And if ESPN wasn’t pimping him so heavily, would the feaux honey badger (see what I did there with the feaux) really be considered for the Heisman? REALLY?
First to identify a TEWWT (so what if it was unintentional)
by Jeremy Sharp on Dec 6, 2011 5:21 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
I tried to point that out above, but, alas, 'twas to no avail.
Everyone wants to discuss playoff models. It’s the cool thing to do.
Nobody wants to confront the uncomfortable truth that we are so easily manipulated by what a bunch of talking heads on ESPN say.
Would you like some Freys with that?
by ChrisP Wildcat on Dec 6, 2011 9:17 PM CST up reply actions
Disagree slightly with "the media controls the narrative."
I contend it is the folks who control the media who control the narrative. It is that way in sports, politics, badminton, NASCAR – you name it.
oh hail the Purple and White
That's a semantically-null nitpick.
The media IS the people who control the media, because the people who control the media decide what the media presents.
The Wiki (I Don't Have a Real Name Yet) -- The Blog (Those Other Guys) -- The Twitter
Contributor at Bring on the Cats, SBNation's Kansas State blog
EDSBS Censor Librorum Promulgatio Media
I agree that it is "control of the narrative" that is the problem.
But for that, the BCS idea is pretty good, because I don’t want an 8 or 16 team playoff. The plus one is growing on me.
But I don’t see how honor and integrity is brought into the equation when ESPN has the power that it has today. I wish I had an answer. The only one I know that will work is to vote with your remote.
oh hail the Purple and White
The reason playoffs are brought up in this discussion...
Is because no one can change the fact that the media is always going to influence the narrative. That doesn’t mean that a plus one or 8 team playoff wouldn’t work better than the current system.
I’m not going to fold my cards and give up on pushing for a better system because the media has influence on people. The BCS isn’t perfect, but it’s a starting point that can be worked with. We shouldn’t throw out the baby with the bath water because things aren’t perfect and the media has influence on people.
Once again, the big problem with the BCS isn’t the formula, it’s that there is no way you can take 119 teams, who all play different schedules and expect to end the year with two clear cut teams standing at the end. It’s a stupid premise and it never works.
The other problem is that bowl committee’s are allowed to pick the teams that will bring the biggest TV draw and buy the most tickets… with no requirements what so ever to base their picks on a teams resume or final ranking. Compare Virginia Tech’s resume to Kansas St.’s in 2011 and tell me the “bowl committee” got it right for the Sugar Bowl.
I'll have what you're smoking.
by ksuwild on Dec 7, 2011 9:31 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Yes, we CAN change the fact that the media influences the narrative
by forcing the media to be accountable for it.
Of course, that will probably never happen, because… well, let’s ask the question: How many of you would actually skip watching every bowl but the Cotton Bowl?
The Wiki (I Don't Have a Real Name Yet) -- The Blog (Those Other Guys) -- The Twitter
Contributor at Bring on the Cats, SBNation's Kansas State blog
EDSBS Censor Librorum Promulgatio Media
I can't speak for everyone...
But if I’m honest, the answer is no. I would not skip watching all the bowls except for the Cotton Bowl… and I don’t think the vast majority of K-State fans would either.
In my opinion the system can still progress… media influence or not. The BCS is an improvement over the old system, there is no reason we can’t continue to improve on that model.
I'll have what you're smoking.
And that's the problem.
Everyone will bitch about ESPN until they’re blue in the face, but nobody will stop watching them.
What can ya do?
The Wiki (I Don't Have a Real Name Yet) -- The Blog (Those Other Guys) -- The Twitter
Contributor at Bring on the Cats, SBNation's Kansas State blog
EDSBS Censor Librorum Promulgatio Media
I already don't watch them.
But, alas, I visit their site with regularity. I’m not sure how much that helps them out, but I still do it. If my fantasy football team wasn’t on ESPN, I might be able to even avoid that.
However, I will not watch a single bowl game on TV this bowl season, unless you count that monstrosity of a jumbotron in Jerry World, where I will be live in person watching my Cats eek by the Razorbacks.
I will also refrain from watching ESPN except when K-State is playing on their network.
Would you like some Freys with that?
by ChrisP Wildcat on Dec 7, 2011 12:26 PM CST up reply actions
very good question
if you are a fan of college football, and enjoy watching games, you will most likely watch them, even if you are upset with the selections, because let’s face it, there isn’t much else to do during that week off from work. I wish it would go back to something more like it used to be though, where it really was “bowl WEEK”, where you could watch football pretty much all day for a week. I don’t like that it has essentially become “bowl MONTH” with only a couple days with multiple games.
I understand why they do it (more captive audience for each game), but that doesn’t mean I have to like it.
I’m going to try really hard to only watch Cotton and Fiesta, but I am weak, and will likely end up watching many more than those two.
First to identify a TEWWT (so what if it was unintentional)
by Jeremy Sharp on Dec 7, 2011 11:29 AM CST up reply actions
The selections?
How about the NETWORK?
The Wiki (I Don't Have a Real Name Yet) -- The Blog (Those Other Guys) -- The Twitter
Contributor at Bring on the Cats, SBNation's Kansas State blog
EDSBS Censor Librorum Promulgatio Media
I'm upset with both.
My main gripe this year is the selection by the Sugar bowl. Had they not passed us over, I would not be inclined to boycott anything.
But yes, we have already determined the network has as much to do with this as anyone.
First to identify a TEWWT (so what if it was unintentional)
I might watch the OSU Cowboys but that is doubtful.
I will watch K-State and any bowl not on ABC/ESPN.
The time for calm and rational discourse is past, now is the time for senseless bickering -Anonymous the Younger
BOTC - Read the Adventures of the BigXII if you doubt our serious attitude towards sports.
by Anon_the_younger on Dec 7, 2011 6:06 PM CST up reply actions
So
You’ll be watching Cotton Bowl (Fox) and Sun Bowl (CBS).
First to identify a TEWWT (so what if it was unintentional)
Works for me.
The time for calm and rational discourse is past, now is the time for senseless bickering -Anonymous the Younger
BOTC - Read the Adventures of the BigXII if you doubt our serious attitude towards sports.
by Anon_the_younger on Dec 7, 2011 6:42 PM CST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
